logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.21 2017고정524
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 4, 2016, around 19:52 around 19:52, the Defendant, at the entrance of the parking lot of the Gangnam Culture and Arts Center located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, as a matter of family dispute, committed assault against the Defendant, who was frightening the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of viewing CCTV images;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that the act of the defendant's defense constitutes a legitimate defense. However, according to evidence, the defendant's defense counsel's act is acknowledged as follows: the defendant's act of defense is the defendant's act. However, the defendant's act was the first step after the passage of the defendant; the victim who was badly injured at the defendant's end was the defendant's objection; the defendant got her body back; the defendant took a dispute with the victim with the victim, and brought about the victim's face; and the victim prevented the defendant's arm's body on the part of the victim.

In light of the above facts of recognition, the victim resisted the defendant as the defendant.

Even if such circumstance alone, there was an unlawful infringement of the defendant's body or other legal interests at present.

It can not be seen that the defendant's act is not an act of defense but an act of attack, so the above assertion by the defense counsel is not accepted.

arrow